Unbridled's Song en fuego!

[Rahy85]

Unbridled's Song doesn't do particularly well against his peers when looking at different soundness variables:

http://www.thoroughbredreview.com/durability.htm

[LB]

Unbridled's Song doesn't do particularly well against his peers when looking at different soundness variables:

http://www.thoroughbredreview.com/durability.htm

Some of the soundness variables used to compile that list don't make much sense to me. What does "Average Earnings Per Start" have to do with soundness and why whould it be used as a measure?

I also think that using "% of Starters from Foals" as a criteria make a very poor way to guess at the soundess of a sire.

[Foggytrip]

I think Silver Source is his best chance to make any noise on the Derby Trail

UBS never stay sound

[Rahy85]

LB... Just to make sure I'm understanding your argument, if two sires have equal numbers in all soundness categories, but one has nearly twice the average earnings per start (indicating they're running at much higher levels of racing), would you still assign them equal overall ratings? Are you arguing that each sire's rating shouldn't be tempered at all?

[LB]

LB... Just to make sure I'm understanding your argument, if two sires have equal numbers in all soundness categories, but one has nearly twice the average earnings per start (indicating they're running at much higher levels of racing), would you still assign them equal overall ratings? Are you arguing that each sire's rating shouldn't be tempered at all?

Let's back up even further then, and see if we can get on the same page. When you say "if two sires have equal numbers in all soundness categories"...what are the categories that you're using as a gauge?

[Rahy85]

Assuming you and I could agree on other variables contributing to an accurate assessment of a sire's ability to sire durable offspring... Are you arguing that in a scenario where two sires have equal numbers, but one has double another sire's average earnings per start, they should be given equal overall ratings? This is essentially what you're arguing when you say that average earnings per start have nothing to do with soundness. I can't imagine anyone making such an argument, but you appear to be doing so.

[LB]

Assuming you and I could agree on other variables contributing to an accurate assessment of a sire's ability to sire durable offspring... Are you arguing that in a scenario where two sires have equal numbers, but one has double another sire's average earnings per start, they should be given equal overall ratings? This is essentially what you're arguing when you say that average earnings per start have nothing to do with soundness. I can't imagine anyone making such an argument, but you appear to be doing so.

Ok, then we'll concentrate on that one issue. Yup, you're right. I would say--for example--that if stallion A's offspring averaged 12 lifetime starts over 2 years of racing with earnings per horse of 100k, and stallion B's offspring averaged 12 lifetime starts over 2 years of racing with average earnings of 50K per horse then on average the soundness they were imparting to their offspring was roughly equal.

To tell you the truth, I have no idea in which direction you plan to argue the opposite. Do you feel that horses should be more credit (for soundness) because they raced at high levels or at lower ones?

[Rahy85]

No... they wouldn't be 'roughly equal'. Sire A was able to get the same numbers of starts over the same time period, but his foals are traveling at a higher velocity, which needs to be reflected in the final rating. To give them an identical rating in spite of the difference in class would be absurd, which you argued initially when you felt like avg earnings per start should be omitted.

[LB]

No... they wouldn't be 'roughly equal'. Sire A was able to get the same numbers of starts over the same time period, but his foals are traveling at a higher velocity, which needs to be reflected in the final rating. To give them an identical rating in spite of the difference in class would be absurd, which you argued initially when you felt like avg earnings per start should be omitted.

Velocity? Seriously? For the vast majority of racehorses it isn't that different, unless you're comparing the very top to the very bottom. If you're going to worry about racing class, then you'd also need to take into account the differential of care. Horses running at a higher level probably receive better day-to-day maintenance than those running in lower ranks. So maybe they'd appear to stay sounder because they have more access to things like chiro, accupuncture, suppliments, inhections, etc.

[Rahy85]

You'd honestly omit racing class altogether in your assessment of durability?

[ASB]

No... they wouldn't be 'roughly equal'. Sire A was able to get the same numbers of starts over the same time period, but his foals are traveling at a higher velocity, which needs to be reflected in the final rating. To give them an identical rating in spite of the difference in class would be absurd, which you argued initially when you felt like avg earnings per start should be omitted.

Velocity? Seriously? For the vast majority of racehorses it isn't that different, unless you're comparing the very top to the very bottom. If you're going to worry about racing class, then you'd also need to take into account the differential of care. Horses running at a higher level probably receive better day-to-day maintenance than those running in lower ranks. So maybe they'd appear to stay sounder because they have more access to things like chiro, accupuncture, suppliments, inhections, etc.

Not to mention the actual difference in track composition. Many of the lower tear tracks have horrendously bad dirt tracks. They cause injuries left and right.

I'm sorry Rahy, but what you're trying to do with your site is commendable, if you're going to start adding things like average earnings because of "velocity" then you have to take other variables into account as well, such as the safety of the tracks of the majority of the runners per sire on the list.

[LB]

Oh. It's Rahy85's own website that he referenced. That explains a lot.

[Rahy85]

I can understand ASB's assertion that additional variables may need to be included... but LB's desire to omit racing class altogether is laughable.

[LB]

I can understand ASB's assertion that additional variables may need to be included... but LB's desire to omit racing class altogether is laughable.

You keep saying that but you have yet to offer any reason(s) why it should matter other than "because I said so"--an argument that I don't happen to find convincing.

[dray33]

Sorry to get involved a bit late, but here is my two-cents:

The data tells the story, so it shouldn't be hard to determine a "Sire progeny durability index" for lack of a better term

Look at two sires. First, I would think you need at least 3 crops of racing age for good value. Something akin to:

DISTORTED HUMOR:

7 crops of racing age
717 foals of racing age
starters 542 (76%)
8,116 starts made by starters

Therefore, on average: 14.97 starts per starter.
That's durability. As for racing class, the determiniation is a simple, separate one: OF the foals that race:

Stakes Winners (/foals of RA): 66 (9%)
Stakes Placers (/foals of RA) 39 (5%)

Let's compare to UNBRIDLED'S SONG:
9 crops of racing age
961 foals of racing age
Starters: 686 (71%)
Starts 8,540
starts per stater: 12.44 starts per starter

Stakes Winners: 72 (7%)
Stakes Placers: 43 (4%)

DH throws more durable foals, and somewhat classier foals, on average.

Is that right?